The GOP convention will feature governors Scott Walker (WI) and John Kasich (OH). These 2 governors will explain how they inherited horrible messes from their predecessors, implemented conservative economic principles, and can point to data that irrefutably shows that those principles are working (these states have lowered taxes, created jobs, and decreased debt).

On the other side, the Democrtatic convention will have Sandra Fluke and Eva Longoria screaming about their desire for free condoms.

Compare the lineup of speakers at each convention. The GOP will have govs Jindal, Christie, and Haley. The Dems have the presidents of NARAL and Planned Parenthood? Oh, and Caroline Kennedy, who has done nothing with her life except trade on her inherited royal status. The GOP will show actual, hard data to suggest that conservative ideas work when implemented. The Democrats' message will be that my side hates women. That's what Obama is hanging his hat on. And it could very well work.

Eva Longoria screaming about their desire for free condoms.

.

mmmmmmmm, I may have to change my political affiliation.

Scott Walker balanced the WI budget largely by borrowing money. Ohio's job growth was largely fueled by infrastructure spending (a lot of industrial equipment) and more importantly the auto bail out.

If these are fact based conservative policies they should make for interesting speakers.

-spence

Scott Walker balanced the WI budget largely by borrowing money. Ohio's job growth was largely fueled by infrastructure spending (a lot of industrial equipment) and more importantly the auto bail out.

If these are fact based conservative policies they should make for interesting speakers.

-spence

OK, Spence. So WI and OH turned things around by having the government borrow and spend more. Got it.

Spence, if that's true (and of course it's not), why has that approach faired so poorly in CT, MA, RI, and Washington DC?

OK, Spence. So WI and OH turned things around by having the government borrow and spend more. Got it.

Spence, if that's true (and of course it's not), why has that approach faired so poorly in CT, MA, RI, and Washington DC?

Different situations.

Ohio has benefited from a recovering auto industry of which there's little supply chain in the north east. Ohio also does have a lot of heavy manufacturing which has rebounded well with international infrastructure development and stimulus spending domestically.

Walker certainly did cut some costs, but I believe he's also diverted banking settlement money into the general fund and borrowed $500M to restructure WI debt.

The point being, you can't just say short-term policy has led to growth or stability when there are a number of factors at play...many of which could be geographic or dealing with larger trends.

-spence

Different situations.

Ohio has benefited from a recovering auto industry of which there's little supply chain in the north east. Ohio also does have a lot of heavy manufacturing which has rebounded well with international infrastructure development and stimulus spending domestically.

Walker certainly did cut some costs, but I believe he's also diverted banking settlement money into the general fund and borrowed $500M to restructure WI debt.

The point being, you can't just say short-term policy has led to growth or stability when there are a number of factors at play...many of which could be geographic or dealing with larger trends.

-spence

"Ohio also does have a lot of heavy manufacturing which has rebounded well with international infrastructure development"

Spence, please share with us the data that says that infastrusture spending is drivingthe Ohio recovery? What have they done there?

We haven't donemuch infastructure spending. Much of the stimulus money went to public labor unions. I don't see how that helps manufacturing.

Don't forget Haley Barbour busting all the unions down there. Using her high heels as weapons in political battles
Nice cheap southern wages with no workers rights

Don't forget Haley Barbour busting all the unions down there. Using her high heels as weapons in political battles


Haley Barbour wears high heels :confused:

Yep you seen him run down the street in red ruby high heels!

Actually it was Nikki Haley

Yep you seen him run down the street in red ruby high heels!

Actually it was Nikki Haley

thought you had a scoop for a minute there:boots:

thought you had a scoop for a minute there:boots:

If Haley Barbour wore high heels, that would necessarily make him a Democrat...

Just saw Mia Love speak at the convention...black, female, republican mayor in Utah, running for Congress, her parents were Haitian immigrants. Awesome story. She might not be able to top Eva Longoria, I'm sure, but still impressive...

Nice cheap southern wages with no workers rights

Those workers have at least one right...the right to go work somplace else if they don't like the low wages offered in the public sector...

Those workers have at least one right...the right to go work somplace else if they don't like the low wages offered in the public sector...

I'm talking private sector jobs Jim

Nice cheap southern wages with no workers rights

I was unaware that South Carolina has no workers rights :confused:

I was unaware that South Carolina has no workers rights :confused:

no lunch break, no vacation or sick leave. Employers may decrease an employees salary with seven days notice. Employees can be terminated without reason or notice

no lunch break, no vacation or sick leave. Employers may decrease an employees salary with seven days notice. Employees can be terminated without reason or notice

well.....

"there are no requirements under South Carolina law forcing an employer to give an employee a lunch break. Employees may also be fired without a specific reason, as long as it's not an illegal reason, and are not guaranteed "benefits" such as paid days off, sick days or paid vacation days. Employers can also decrease employees' payment if they notify them in writing seven calendar days before the decrease."


I really don't see a problem with these...I'm pretty sure that workers in SC have "rights", these aren't really "rights", more like employer burdens that government may impose on employers in other states, workers have the option("right") not to work where employers do not pay for lunch breaks, days off, sick days,vacation days and can hold you accountable for your performance:)..you might be confusing "rights" and "benefits" in many cases.....maybe you meant Mississippi?

I'm talking private sector jobs Jim

What 'rights' don't those workers have?

Employees can be terminated without reason or notice

That's what every private sector worker in the nation lives with. Your 'job security' lies with making sure your boss knows that he is better off with you than he is without you.

And there needs to be a legal reason to fire someone, or the company gets sued.

What 'rights' don't those workers have?

rights to government mandated benefits....sometimes referred to as entitlements..most of the instances he cited involved getting paid when you aren't actually working....:uhuh:

rights to government mandated benefits....sometimes referred to as entitlements..most of the instances he cited involved getting paid when you aren't actually working....:uhuh:

There is a 'mystery speaker' on the schedule for Thursday night at the convention. Maybe Sarah Palin or General Petrayus?

I thought Ann Romney was awesome (better than some angry jerk who says she's never been proud of her country), and I thought Chris Christie was pretty good.

There is a 'mystery speaker' on the schedule for Thursday night at the convention. Maybe Sarah Palin or General Petrayus?

I thought Ann Romney was awesome (better than some angry jerk who says she's never been proud of her country), and I thought Chris Christie was pretty good.


It's going to be nice to have a lady in the white house instead of that we have now.
I thought Ann was great.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's going to be nice to have a lady in the white house instead of that we have now.
I thought Ann was great.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You and Jim are both very classy!

I did hear part of Christie's speech. He didn't mention that he didn't want to be Romney's VP b/c he didn't think he could win and that NJ's unemployment rate was higher than when he took over and that their rev. is down even thought he promised it would be up due to tax cuts.

Didn't the Ohio governor take credit for the Ohio recovery even though both he and Romney were against the auto bailout.

Didn't the Ohio governor take credit for the Ohio recovery even though both he and Romney were against the auto bailout.

That doesn't matter. Only 1:10 (or was it 1:8?) Jobs in Ohio are related to auto industry in some way.....

They were all great speakers...:)

They were all great speakers...:)

Yup, refreshing. Good to hear people who are inspiring, not dividing everyone
into a group or class.

With Christie, what you see is what you get. Nobodies lunch meat, see and admit the tough problems and get them fixed. Musta scared some people. :)

You and Jim are both very classy!

I did hear part of Christie's speech. He didn't mention that he didn't want to be Romney's VP b/c he didn't think he could win and that NJ's unemployment rate was higher than when he took over and that their rev. is down even thought he promised it would be up due to tax cuts.

Didn't the Ohio governor take credit for the Ohio recovery even though both he and Romney were against the auto bailout.

"He didn't mention that he didn't want to be Romney's VP b/c he didn't think he could win..."

PaulS, I didn't know you were privvy to those discussions. That's pure speculation. But I'm stating fact when I say that Michelle said she wasn't proud of her country.

Most of all of our postings are speculation, conjecture, falsehoods, hyperbole and outright distortions:grins:

Most of all of our postings are speculation, conjecture, falsehoods, hyperbole and outright distortions:grins:

Michelle Obama said she was not proud of her country until her hubby got the nomination. That's fact.

You said Christie turned down the VP slot because he thought Romney couldn't win. That's made up jibberish.

If you want to categorize yourself as guilty of falsehoods and distortions, I agree with you, that's what you do. Please refrain from lumping others into that categorization.

[QUOTE=PaulS;956083]You and Jim are both very classy!

Us classy ?
Last time I checked no other 1st lady was a guest editor for a smutt magazine as was reported fat ass Michelle is doing.
Classy 1st lady !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Today the liberal media is all over her calling Ann Ronmey a Corporate wife.
I'll take the corporate wife over the gimme handouts her whole life wife.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you want to categorize yourself as guilty of falsehoods and distortions, I agree with you, that's what you do. Please refrain from lumping others into that categorization.

Seriously, your post is exactly why when I fish w/others from this site people frequently bring you up (unprompted) - lighten up.

Show me some falsehoods.

distortions- your the one who constantly puts up threads about something you see and then attributes it to all liberals.

At least you make me laugh.

Us classy ?
Last time I checked no other 1st lady was a guest editor for a smutt magazine as was reported fat ass Michelle is doing.
Classy 1st lady !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yup - exactly. Talking about the Pres. wife. I've never seen it done until the last 4 years with such anger except the very extreme fringes - I guess that is what the Rep. party has now moved to.

I'm always thankful I was raised to never have the hate I see here - your comment, Jim calling her a jerk, other people calling politicians POS - all classless.

[QUOTE=PaulS;956083]You and Jim are both very classy!

Us classy ?
Last time I checked no other 1st lady was a guest editor for a smutt magazine as was reported fat ass Michelle is doing.
Classy 1st lady !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm blushing just reading it......I heard tomorrow she's going to have pictures of her making Donuts AND Crullers in the same photo....doesn't get more suggestive than that....I bet the Cruller is Chocolate too...

Its an online Women's Magazine for God's Sakes....and she's talking about parenting and Family.

Guest Editor Michelle Obama - iVillage (http://www.ivillage.com/guest-editor-michelle-obama)

Last time I checked no other 1st lady was a guest editor for a smutt magazine as was reported fat ass Michelle is doing.
Classy 1st lady !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Interesting how you'd call a very fit women a "fat ass" in the same breath as accusing her of a lack of class.

Just sayin.

-spence

Michelle Obama said she was not proud of her country until her hubby got the nomination. That's fact.
We've discussed this before, it's not a fact.

-spence

Its an online Women's Magazine for God's Sakes....and she's talking about parenting and Family.

Guest Editor Michelle Obama - iVillage (http://www.ivillage.com/guest-editor-michelle-obama)
TDF, pregnancy is not something to be talked about in the open and certainly not in front of children.

Next you're going to tell me you let your kids listen to rock music and dance with girls.

I just hope at least they were conceived in the missionary position.

-spence

I just hope at least they were conceived in the missionary position.

-spence

Lights Off too....But that was more for my wife's benefit :hihi:

We haven't donemuch infastructure spending. Much of the stimulus money went to public labor unions. I don't see how that helps manufacturing.
A lot of infrastructure spending is global in nature and drives the entire manufacturing base. Ohio has a pretty big economy, automotive, agriculture, aerospace suppliers, steel production, industrial machinery, medical etc...

Kasich hasn't even been governor for two years. You think he magically fixed things? Their economy is driven by much larger global trends.

-spence

TDF, pregnancy is not something to be talked about in the open and certainly not in front of children.



It should only be discussed in quiet rooms.

We've discussed this before, it's not a fact.

-spence

Michelle Obama: “For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime, I’m Really Proud of My Country” - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/02/michelle-obam-1-2/)

here's the video...

Michelle Obama: First Time proud of USA - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYY73RO_egw&feature=player_embedded)

Here is what she said...

""For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country"

Spence, is this a fact, or not? In Spenceworld, can something not be considered a fact if it makes Michelle Obama look like the azzhole she is?

When my son made Eagle Scout I was Really Proud of him...doesn't mean I was never proud of him before that. It just means at the point of time I was feeling awesome in the moment.

I'm pretty sure at that moment I even said to him I am really proud of him...I know he didn't take it that I was never proud of him before

It wasn't a smart thing for her to say...but I really don't think she was saying she was never proud of her country....just at that moment in time she let emotions take over and said something that just wasn't worded correctly

I guaranty the DNC has people working right now to get dirt on Mia Love. That Woman was great everything she said was true (I obviously can not speak for the 10 dollars) and made sense. I am looking forward to how this Utah Congressional election works out.

ohio successful - auto bailout!
texas successful - energy credits!
Wisconsin successful - borrowed $!
Colorado,Virginia, - defense spending! cheap labor!
Okay,
So lets take a different approach, can you enlight me on why CT, RI, MA, MI and for giggles lets throw in CA are all s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g wind, broke, losing population and general in a heap of shat?

maybe the dems can have Jerry Brown speak? It seems he has the same "Hope and Change" solution Obama. Is there only one page in the Democrats play book?

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Tax the rich! That's how California Governor Jerry Brown wants to solve the state's growing budget crisis that now nears $16 billion.

The governor laid out his revised spending plan Monday. It would slash $8.3 billion from almost every part of the state's government. But it would increase funding for K-12 education if voters approve his proposal to hike income taxes on the rich and sales taxes on everyone.

maybe the dems can have Jerry Brown speak? It seems he has the same "Hope and Change" solution Obama. Is there only one page in the Democrats play book?



So do we infer the actions or thoughts of one person represent the larger group?

- GOP attendee ejected for throwing nuts at African American CNN camera woman + saying "This is how we feed animals."

A lot of infrastructure spending is global in nature and drives the entire manufacturing base. Ohio has a pretty big economy, automotive, agriculture, aerospace suppliers, steel production, industrial machinery, medical etc...

Kasich hasn't even been governor for two years. You think he magically fixed things? Their economy is driven by much larger global trends.

-spence

Spence UUUU left out COAL

.but I really don't think she was saying she was never proud of her country....

I don't know what she meant, but I know what she said. She said it twice. In scripted, rehearsed speeches.

We all put our feet in pour mouths. But that's a hell of a thing she said (twice).

And Spence said it wasn't a fact that she said it.

ohio successful - auto bailout!
texas successful - energy credits!
Wisconsin successful - borrowed $!
Colorado,Virginia, - defense spending! cheap labor!
Okay,
So lets take a different approach, can you enlight me on why CT, RI, MA, MI and for giggles lets throw in CA are all s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g wind, broke, losing population and general in a heap of shat?

Great post. I'm waiting for Spence's response...

So do we infer the actions or thoughts of one person represent the larger group?

- GOP attendee ejected for throwing nuts at African American CNN camera woman + saying "This is how we feed animals."

no, I infer the economic polices of democrats adversly impact the states they control. I come to that conclusion based on evidence consistently offered by myslef and others on this board and "explained" away by our liberal contingent. If we can explain away why republican controlled states seem to be fairing MUCH better than democrat controlled states, I would like to know why the democrat states are fairing so poorly?

Spence, is this a fact, or not? In Spenceworld, can something not be considered a fact if it makes Michelle Obama look like the azzhole she is?
It's a fact when you take her quote out of context. She went on to add that what she was feeling proud about was people uniting around a common cause. She did this twice, in scripted speeches.

-spence

I vote mainly based on socials issues more than economic issues so I don't get involved in many discussions here on economic policy. But to give you the courtesy of a response, I'll give you a very short, very general and prob. disjointed answer- I think it is a mixed bag, some cons. states are doing better than lib. states and vice versa. I think the quality of life is much higher in the lib. states. Certainly, jobs have moved south (cons.) due to less regulation and the ability to pay less taxes. There is a huge drain of fed. taxes that the lib. states pay to the govern. that gets transferred to the cons. states. Educ. levels, health, obesity are all better in the lib states. Higher environ. standards costs $ in the libs states. We'll disagree whether higher taxes are worth it for all that and what you and I consider quality of life.

And just to go on the record, I don't believe whoever made that idiotic statement is crazy and doesn't represent the Rs.

I vote mainly based on socials issues more than economic issues so I don't get involved in many discussions here on economic policy. But to give you the courtesy of a response, I'll give you a very short, very general and prob. disjointed answer- I think it is a mixed bag, some cons. states are doing better than lib. states and vice versa. I think the quality of life is much higher in the lib. states. Certainly, jobs have moved south (cons.) due to less regulation and the ability to pay less taxes. There is a huge drain of fed. taxes that the lib. states pay to the govern. that gets transferred to the cons. states. Educ. levels, health, obesity are all better in the lib states. Higher environ. standards costs $ in the libs states. We'll disagree whether higher taxes are worth it for all that and what you and I consider quality of life.

And just to go on the record, I don't believe whoever made that idiotic statement is crazy and doesn't represent the Rs.

I appreciate your response, but its misinformed. Quality of life is subjective however there are some parameters universally accepted -
cost of housing, schools, recreation, culture, etc. I'd be glad to repost all the items I posted in the Coincidence thread but its tiring. My "quality of life" in new england consited of long commutes, freezng winters and unfriendly people, high cost of living and declining schools. I lived in a decent town in MA. What you call concervatve states are growing, have a high quality of life - not a bunch fo trailer parks and taco bells. Again referr to to the many, many articles on "best cities to live, best cities for job growth", etc. I've found New Englanders view of the the south and or conservative states is about 25 years behind. Believe it or not, these rednecks have been sending their kids to college the last few decades and most are pretty bright. Things are way different. Paul - I leave you with this. A non political, brief analysis.
Please read - http://pubpages.unh.edu/~rgittell/documents/Carsey_NHYoungAdults.pdf

Here is an exceprt - it seems the great quality of life you mention may not be shared....
What is less well understood is why the distribution of the
young adult age cohort is so unequal across diff erent regions.
Why do some of the Mountain, Northwest and Southeastern
states have positive growth rates of 20 to 60 percent in the
young adult age group while New England has double-digit
decline? Th e dramatic diff erences suggest that New England
is not “attractive” to young adults, but what factors contribute
to young adults’ preference for one region over another?
What is the relative importance, for instance, of factors such
as costs of living? What role do housing or energy costs play
in the choices made by diff erent age cohorts? Are certain
types of jobs or environments more desirable by people
of diff erent ages? How do current “myths” about some
regions being more youth-oriented and youth-friendly than
others infl uence the changes we have seen in recent years?
We do not yet have answers to questions like thes

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~rgittell/documents/Carsey_NHYoungAdults.pdf

She went on to add that what she was feeling proud about was people uniting around a common cause.
-spence

and what was this cause that people united around?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When my son made Eagle Scout I was Really Proud of him...doesn't mean I was never proud of him before that. It just means at the point of time I was feeling awesome in the moment.

I'm pretty sure at that moment I even said to him I am really proud of him...I know he didn't take it that I was never proud of him before

It wasn't a smart thing for her to say...but I really don't think she was saying she was never proud of her country....just at that moment in time she let emotions take over and said something that just wasn't worded correctly

Another thing TDF...Michelle Obana sat in Rev Wright's church for 20 years. Among other htings, Rev Wright preaches that the Amrrican govt invented AIDS to exterminate the black man. Rev Wright said that. Michelle Obama asked him ti marry her, and to baptize her 2 kids.

Don't tell me it's that much of a stretch to suggest that Michelle hates what she considers to be "white" America. There isn't a single person in that "church" who isn't filled, and deranged, with hate.

I guess this is a moot discussion anyway, since Spence says Michelle never even said those words...

It's a fact when you take her quote out of context. She went on to add that what she was feeling proud about was people uniting around a common cause. She did this twice, in scripted speeches.

-spence

I didn't take anything out of context. If her intended context was what you claim, than she should have said what you claim she meant to say.

So she was saying that Americans, prior to the summer of 2008, have never "united around a common cause"? No??

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid spence...

Spence - to reiterate...I did not take Michelle's line out of context...I simply failed to state her reason for not being proud of America until 2008. But you stated her reason, and I'm sure you're correct...in the mind of Michelle Obama, Americans had never united around a common cause in way that was worthy of her pride. That is why she wasn't proud of America.

The question then is, does she have a valid point, or is she a greedy, hate-mongering, race-baiter?

America has done a lot to be proud of...we have free elctions every year...we saved the world in 1942. we are a beacon of light to people everywhere who want to be free...we are the most generous nation in the history of the planet. And speaking for Michelle Obama, America didn't treat her all that poorly - Ivy League education, jobs on a hospital board paying hundrds of thousands of dollars a year.

She wasn't proud of any of that. None of that mattered until we coronated her husband as king and deity.

I'd rather have Eva Braun as first lady.

I'd rather have Eva Braun as first lady.

Thank you for showing me the reason you're going back on my ignore list.
As an ex-gi you should be ashamed of your own vitriol

Thank you for showing me the reason you're going back on my ignore list.
As an ex-gi you should be ashamed of your own vitriol

It's precisely because I was a GI that I refuse to ignore (or celebrate) the kind of hate that Michele Obama spews. Her hate is ignored (or celebrated) because she is pretty, black, and eloquent.

When I was a GI, I lost 2 kids under my command, in combat. One was 19 years old, 1 was 20 years old. Both of them should have been spending weekends on the beach, chasing girls, dreaming of the wonderous possibioities of their futures. Instead, they volunteered to serve in the most difficult, dangerous branch of the military. They made this choice knowing what could happen, knowing that they were likely to fight in places that they never heard of when they were kids.

Regardless of what you think of the mission in Iraq, what they did was heroic. Yet Michelle Obama, our repugnant First Lady, literally spits on their graves when she says that she was not proud of the fact that her country has produced hundreds of thousands of Americans (millions of similar heroic Americans in our proud history) ready to make that sacrifice. Nope. She did not recognize THAT sacrifice as Americans rallying around a worthy cause. To her, the only worthy cause, the only thing worthy of her pride, was bestowing royalty, or heavenly, status on her husband. Up until that point, nothing that America had ever done was worthy of her pride. Those are her words, not mine.

She was not proud of anything America has ever done? We are the bravest, most generous, most selfless country in the history of the planet Earth. While we are obviously far from perfect, no nation has done nearly as much to be proud of.

She's a grotesque, spoiled, hate-filled, ungrateful race-baiter. Not one person who sits in Rev Wright's church (week in, week out) can possibly be described any other way. It's just not possible. Anyone who is a deep, genuine believer of a religion called "Black Liberation Theology" is deranged.

I'd rather have Eva Braun as first lady.

you meant Eva Longoria....right? :)

Jim...please correct me if I am wrong....U R a Marine I do believe... not a G I (drafted.. Government Inductee) that is what the initials have ment...not bashing the other branches of the military.

Once a Marine.. always a Marine.

"Semper Fi"

Jim...please correct me if I am wrong....U R a Marine I do believe... not a G I (drafted.. Government Inductee) that is what the initials have ment...not bashing the other branches of the military.

Once a Marine.. always a Marine.

"Semper Fi"

I was a Marine...I was just responding in context, and didn't bother to point out the inconsistency...

ohio successful - auto bailout!
texas successful - energy credits!
Wisconsin successful - borrowed $!
Colorado,Virginia, - defense spending! cheap labor!
Okay,
So lets take a different approach, can you enlight me on why CT, RI, MA, MI and for giggles lets throw in CA are all s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g wind, broke, losing population and general in a heap of shat?
For one thing, New England has higher real estate and energy costs which impact both cost of living and cost of business. My understanding is that the small size of local municipalities also drive up state debt as the states effectively have to underwrite capital investment so communities can get more favorable terms. State pensions do factor in as they do in most states.

RI might not have a great business climate but I don't think MA is that bad...and Boston is seeing a but of a high-tech revival fueled in part by a highly educated local work force. CT is experiencing growth due to aerospace business improving globally.

High energy costs are a big factor here as well. Why does TPI make wind blades in Iowa instead of Warren, RI? It's not because of taxes or regulation, it's because of transportation costs.

The point is, that there are a lot of variables to factor in if you're going to try and understand why some states are doing better than others at any given point in time. Yes, low taxes and regulation might be an enticement...but perhaps overshadowed by cheap housing, cheap land and cheap energy all of which have driven growth in TX.

So would Rhode Island be successful if it acted more like Texas? Unfortunately it's just not possible.

-spence

For one thing, New England has higher real estate and energy costs which impact both cost of living and cost of business. My understanding is that the small size of local municipalities also drive up state debt as the states effectively have to underwrite capital investment so communities can get more favorable terms. State pensions do factor in as they do in most states.

RI might not have a great business climate but I don't think MA is that bad...and Boston is seeing a but of a high-tech revival fueled in part by a highly educated local work force. CT is experiencing growth due to aerospace business improving globally.

The point is, that there are a lot of variables to factor in if you're going to try and understand why some states are doing better than others at any given point in time. Yes, low taxes and regulation might be an enticement...but perhaps overshadowed by cheap housing, cheap land and cheap energy all of which have driven growth in TX.

So would Rhode Island be successful if it acted more like Texas? Unfortunately it's just not possible.

-spence

First of all, you denied that it's factually true that Michelle O said she had never before been proud of the US. Spence, when you do that, and never admit you made it up, you lose a lot of credibility....

"CT is experiencing growth due to aerospace business improving globally."

OK. I have lived in CT my entire life when I wasn't in the military. UCONN just released a report this week that said that the CT economy is in worse shape than previously thought. That one sector may be growing, I don't know, combined with your history of making stuff up, who knows. But CT is a disaster, and it will get worse as the Baby Boomers get older and retire.

"low taxes and regulation might be an enticement...but perhaps overshadowed by cheap housing, cheap land"

But what if cheap housing and cheap land are a direct result of the low taxes and little regulation? You are assuming there is no correlation betwen such things. But the fact is, red states have lower costs of living (and far less debt), and blue states have higher cost of living (and more debt).

It can't all be random chance.

Spence, what blue states are thriving? Really thriving, the way NC is thriving? I would say TX and Alaska, but those states are bursting with oil, so it's not a fair comparison...

According to almost every conceivable finansial measure, red states are better off than blue states. Can you, Spence, admit the possibility that there might be a correlation there?

First of all, you denied that it's factually true that Michelle O said she had never before been proud of the US. Spence, when you do that, and never admit you made it up, you lose a lot of credibility....
Context Jim, context...

OK. I have lived in CT my entire life when I wasn't in the military. UCONN just released a report this week that said that the CT economy is in worse shape than previously thought. That one sector may be growing, I don't know, combined with your history of making stuff up, who knows. But CT is a disaster, and it will get worse as the Baby Boomers get older and retire.
The point is that aerospace growth isn't moving to Texas because of lower taxes...it's staying in CT because that's where the skilled workers are.

A lot of automotive engineering fled south MI when the industry fell apart. Now companies are moving to the same locations because that's where the talent is.

But what if cheap housing and cheap land are a direct result of the low taxes and little regulation? You are assuming there is no correlation betwen such things. But the fact is, red states have lower costs of living (and far less debt), and blue states have higher cost of living (and more debt).
Many of the blue states tend to be in developed urban areas. Land is more expensive simply because there's less of it.

You can't magically lower regulations and make a field appear for an office park or factory.

It can't all be random chance.
Nobody ever said it was random, but it is cyclical.

Spence, what blue states are thriving? Really thriving, the way NC is thriving? I would say TX and Alaska, but those states are bursting with oil, so it's not a fair comparison...
Didn't Obama crush McCain in NC?

According to almost every conceivable finansial measure, red states are better off than blue states. Can you, Spence, admit the possibility that there might be a correlation there?
There really are very few pure red or blue states, those are political designations without much meaningful statistical relevance.

How well was Texas doing when oil was 10 bucks a barrel?

-spence

we're talking about business development not oil production. We dont pay much less than you for a gallon of gas. Once again, every thing I read may be wrong - low tax and business friendly climate is driving growth in these states.

Spence did you read this link, its brief.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~rgittell/documents/Carsey_NHYoungAdults.pdf
Do you know how catastrophic the implications are for New England? You're losing your growth population. Couple that with an aging population, slow growth, high taxes. The workforce of 25-35 yr olds pay high taxes, buy houses, have babies. They drive economic growth!
As someone who plans business for a living, we look closely at this data. are you going to grow your company where there is an abundant workforce or a declining workforce? The answer is obvious. Are you going to tell me people are moving to the southwest because of OIL? really?
Couple the analysis in the link with my own experience - - my 2 best friends in Highs School (from CT), smart, educated guys - live in Arizona and Tennesse. Of my 6 best friends from college all from RI and CT, not ONE lives in new england. Florida, CA and Georgia
2 families in my old neighborhood, couldnt find jobs here, educated and experienced - just moved to Ohio with good jobs within the last month. My secretary - lived in a rented Revere apt, made the move to TX in the last month. For 170K bought a 2010 - 4 bedroom 3600 sq ft house with large inground pool in a great neighborhood. Loves the shops, restaurnats and activities nearby. Tell me where a secretary in NE can buy a 4 bedroom house?
The data is there. You may think its cyclical, I think its a major population shift driven by good economic climates in areas with nice weather, good jobs, great infrastructures

low tax and business friendly climate is driving growth in these states.

To chime in on the Spence/Jim cuddle fest...
My only point with oil isthat a big reason why the states can afford to offer the really low taxes, and still provide the level of services all of those people moving there can enjoy, has to do with the non-(income/sales etc..) tax revenue paid by the oil co's. It has nothing to do w/ cost at the pump.

To chime in on the Spence/Jim cuddle fest...
My only point with oil isthat a big reason why the states can afford to offer the really low taxes, and still provide the level of services all of those people moving there can enjoy, has to do with the non-(income/sales etc..) tax revenue paid by the oil co's. It has nothing to do w/ cost at the pump.

So how does Florida afford to have no state taxes?

So how does Florida afford to have no state taxes?

How is their economy doing right now?
all I hear about is the real estate bubble and no jobs... Are they booming like your new home state?

No idea how their economy is, but I was talking about the state. How are they paying for services without income tx revenue and oil?

Bry - check this chart out -

Which States Will Add Jobs in 2012? - Kiplinger (http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/which-states-have-the-jobs.html)

Only one state in New England is showing any color for adding jobs - New Hampshire. Tell me what every state in New England except New Hampshire has?
I bet you'll tell me its the state liquir stores driving the jobs//////

Jim I don't disagree with your point re: taxes and buisness.

So is the answer to dramatically cut services (spending), which we can agree helps lower income folks more than the rest of us (not saying everyone deserves it, and acknowleding there are many who abuse the system), and hope buisness comes back, the cost of living drops and the state's economy turns around?

None of this is as easy and simple as we make it seem online....

Jim I don't disagree with your point re: taxes and buisness.

So is the answer to dramatically cut services (spending), which we can agree helps lower income folks more than the rest of us (not saying everyone deserves it, and acknowleding there are many who abuse the system), and hope buisness comes back, the cost of living drops and the state's economy turns around?

None of this is as easy and simple as we make it seem online....

"So is the answer to dramatically cut services (spending), which we can agree helps lower income folks more than the rest of us "

I don't thnk cutting services, especially if they are wasteful and inefficient, necessarily causes harm to those in need. The state of Texas doesn't spend a lot per capita, and they have lots of penniless immigrants who need help. Those people aren't all dying in the streets.

Get rid of stupid waste. Stop giving blank checks to labor unions (that's a HUGE ISSUE). Don't over-regulate business to the point that it makes their lives impossible.

It's not as hard as you think, I bet.

Not all problems are solved simply by throwing money at them. SD and VT pay their teachers very little compared to other states, but they have some of the highst test scores.

How is their economy doing right now?
all I hear about is the real estate bubble and no jobs... Are they booming like your new home state?

Any one state can be an exception (in the case of FL, that's a place that got clobbered by the housing bubble).

But if you look at red states (as a group) compared to blue states (as a group), and compare every measurable economic statistic (unemployment, debt per capita, where the popluations are increasing/decreasing, cost of living, ease of doing business) you'll see results that couldn't be any more conclusive if Sean Hannity made them up himself. How does that not convince you that conservative economices is superior toi liberal economics? What will it take to convince you? Do you remember what Bill Clinton did, and whatthe results were?

When speaking about hypotheticals, things get confusing and complicated. But in thsi debate, we have more than enough real, tangibke data. i don't get it...

we're talking about business development not oil production. We dont pay much less than you for a gallon of gas. Once again, every thing I read may be wrong - low tax and business friendly climate is driving growth in these states.
Think about the impact of oil exploration and the supply chain. Texas has most of the equipment providers and EPC (engineer/procure/construct) companies headquartered there...and they're cranking due to the energy situation.

Granted, there's other industry as well...but for a lot of other reasons.


Spence did you read this link, its brief.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~rgittell/documents/Carsey_NHYoungAdults.pdf
Do you know how catastrophic the implications are for New England? You're losing your growth population. Couple that with an aging population, slow growth, high taxes. The workforce of 25-35 yr olds pay high taxes, buy houses, have babies. They drive economic growth!
As someone who plans business for a living, we look closely at this data. are you going to grow your company where there is an abundant workforce or a declining workforce? The answer is obvious. Are you going to tell me people are moving to the southwest because of OIL? really?
Couple the analysis in the link with my own experience - - my 2 best friends in Highs School (from CT), smart, educated guys - live in Arizona and Tennesse. Of my 6 best friends from college all from RI and CT, not ONE lives in new england. Florida, CA and Georgia
2 families in my old neighborhood, couldnt find jobs here, educated and experienced - just moved to Ohio with good jobs within the last month. My secretary - lived in a rented Revere apt, made the move to TX in the last month. For 170K bought a 2010 - 4 bedroom 3600 sq ft house with large inground pool in a great neighborhood. Loves the shops, restaurnats and activities nearby. Tell me where a secretary in NE can buy a 4 bedroom house?
The data is there. You may think its cyclical, I think its a major population shift driven by good economic climates in areas with nice weather, good jobs, great infrastructures

I think I've stated in several posts that companies will move where the talent it, this is their most valuable asset.

But is the shift of talent being driven by local policies? I don't think there's data that really suggests this.

-spence

Clint Eastwood = What were they thinking? :confused:

Rubio = Great speaker but all he threw out were feel good lines.

Romney = Empty. Seriously empty. I was at least expecting some vision, got nothing.

-spence

Clint Eastwood = What were they thinking? :confused:

Rubio = Great speaker but all he threw out were feel good lines.

Romney = Empty. Seriously empty. I was at least expecting some vision, got nothing.

-spence

Clint = Combination Funny / Scary in delivery

Rubio = good, some substance

Feel good lines = what I see when I watch the Dem conventions, little substance

Romeny = better than I expected, fewer promises to have to not live up to later on

Clint = Combination Funny / Scary in delivery

Rubio = good, some substance

Feel good lines = what I see when I watch the Dem conventions, little substance

Romeny = better than I expected, fewer promises to have to not live up to later on

Agree with exception to Clint (thought it was really bad personally). Although maybe by deisgn as it made Romney speech seem perfect compared to his.

It was nice to see Mike Eruzione in attendence

Sad, but funniest line at the convention-

"And then there is the recent college grad without a job, living home with his parents,
laying in bed staring at a faded picture of Obama on the wall."

But if you look at red states (as a group) compared to blue states (as a group), and compare every measurable economic statistic (unemployment, debt per capita, where the popluations are increasing/decreasing, cost of living, ease of doing business) you'll see results that couldn't be any more conclusive if Sean Hannity made them up himself. How does that not convince you that conservative economices is superior toi liberal economics?


Maybe he knows that there are things called variables and it is very difficult to draw conclusions when there are many, many, variables. Here is one you might consider:

"Of the 32 states which receive more than they contribute, 27 states (84%) are REPUBLICAN. Of the 18 states which contribute more than they receive, 14 states (78%) are DEMOCRATIC."

PolitiFact | 'Red State Socialism' graphic says GOP-leaning states get lion's share of federal dollars (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/26/blog-posting/red-state-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state/)

here it is explained slightly differently:
"Red states were more likely to get a bigger cut of federal spending. Of the 22 states that went to McCain in 2008, 86 percent received more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010. In contrast, 55 percent of the states that went to Obama received more federal spending than they paid in taxes. Republican states, on average, received $1.46 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid; Democratic states, on average, received $1.16"

Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps)

A principal components analysis would almost certainly show that the fact that they take in more tax dollars than they pay out is at least as relevant to the quality of life indicators you addressed than political association. So if you really wanted to test the theory of "conservative economics," you couldn't have those states take in 46% more than they pay out. Just in case you really wondered why Spence may not be convinced.

so Zim, looks like you're also saying Cons are better at representing their states in Congress?

A lot of that money is in defense and if you talk to the majority of defense folks, they are treated far better in the south, west, and heartland than in the northeast or northwest.

In a nutshell we can argue until the cows come home - wherever the money comes from or goes to, we spend FAR MORE than we take in. This is not sustainable.

If we keep spending like we do now and accelerate that with current obligations - sorry Baby Boomers but you will kill this country - this country will break.

Maybe that is the desire of some, make money a non-factor, worthless, to move to a different system. Other than greed or apathy, I can see no other reason many keep moving the goal posts.

"Of the 32 states which receive more than they contribute, 27 states (84%) are REPUBLICAN. Of the 18 states which contribute more than they receive, 14 states (78%) are DEMOCRATIC."

PolitiFact | 'Red State Socialism' graphic says GOP-leaning states get lion's share of federal dollars (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/26/blog-posting/red-state-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state/)

here it is explained slightly differently:
"Red states were more likely to get a bigger cut of federal spending. Of the 22 states that went to McCain in 2008, 86 percent received more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010. In contrast, 55 percent of the states that went to Obama received more federal spending than they paid in taxes. Republican states, on average, received $1.46 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid; Democratic states, on average, received $1.16"

Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps)

A principal components analysis would almost certainly show that the fact that they take in more tax dollars than they pay out is at least as relevant to the quality of life indicators you addressed than political association. So if you really wanted to test the theory of "conservative economics," you couldn't have those states take in 46% more than they pay out. Just in case you really wondered why Spence may not be convinced.

""Of the 32 states which receive more than they contribute, 27 states (84%) are REPUBLICAN. Of the 18 states which contribute more than they receive, 14 states (78%) are DEMOCRATIC."

Zimmy, I am sure that the red states, as a group, send more federal tax money to blue states than they receive from blue states. That's federal income tax. What about state income tax? Blue states charge way more state income tax than red states, and almost all of that stays within the state. yet, even with all that state tax revenue, blue states have way more debt per capita.

Zimmy, if you want to suggest that blue states spend less money on state programs than red states, due to the fact that blue states send so much money to red states, then that data will be easy to find and post.

"in case you really wondered why Spence may not be convinced"

No, I don't wonder why he's not convinced, I know for sure why he's not convinced...because he's incapable of admitting factual realities that don't support his pre-determined agenda.

Zimmy, I am sure that the red states, as a group, send more federal tax money to blue states than they receive from blue states. That's federal income tax.

If the charts he provided are accurate, don't they disprove what you think?

What about state income tax? Blue states charge way more state income tax than red states, and almost all of that stays within the state. yet, even with all that state tax revenue, blue states have way more debt per capita.
Perhaps one of the reasons blue states have higher tax rates is to offset the Federal spending they're not getting.

No, I don't wonder why he's not convinced, I know for sure why he's not convinced...because he's incapable of admitting factual realities that don't support his pre-determined agenda.
Seriously, perhaps when you deal in some facts you'll be able to speak with any credibility here.

-spence

This pretty much nails it :hihi:

-spence

This pretty much nails it :hihi:

-spence

Obama's leadership thus far has been imaginary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This pretty much nails it :hihi:

-spence


Roll out the race bit, Spence. Nice. One of these days we'll get past that. Pretty sure you're just trolling (Gawd I hope so)

Roll out the race bit, Spence. Nice. One of these days we'll get past that. Pretty sure you're just trolling (Gawd I hope so)

Come on, it's pretty funny.

-spence

Being that this is a thread on convention speakers......Chaffee?Really? Chaffee?If the most brain-dead human being to ever be elected to office is one of your big speakers than the DNC and Obama have problems,really big problems if they think this buffoon is going to garner them votes.

Maybe Romney should have had Palin speak!

This election is the biggest travesty in my lifetime.Nothing like be held hostage by a broken political system and being forced to vote Romney because no one of sound mind can possibly vote for Obama.Lesser of two evils...what a way to go.Sad.

This pretty much nails it :hihi:

-spence

Spence, betta send a new Swifter Duster to Charlotte.

They're gonna need it when they roll out the leaders of the Dems- Frank, Reid,
Brown, Pelosie,Boxer,Biden etc. LOL :grins:

Obama's leadership thus far has been imaginary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So is Romney's at the national level. Pick your Kool-Aid

So is Romney's at the national level. Pick your Kool-Aid

Obama has been an abject failure. Romney is un-inspiring. It's disheartening.

But you want gutsy leadership? How can you claim Paul Ryan isn't the epitome of gutsy leadership. He'sthe first politician in god-knows-how-long to say out loud "Medicare is going broke, and here's my plan to fix it".

I don't know enough about healthcare to say if Ryan's plan was a good plan or a bad plan. What I do know is this...instead of offering an alternative solution, the liberal response was to show a commercial showing Ryan pushing a wheelchair-bound lady off a cliff. This, despite the fact that Ryan's plan specifically does not touch Medicare for current seniors.

You may not agree with Ryan's plan. But if you have a shred of intellectual honesty, how do you not give him credit for bold, decisive LEADERSHIP. He's the only policician who has a specific plan to adress what is, BY FAR, our largest economic threat.

I don't usually get excited about vice-presidents. Ryan ain't a rock-star. But he's decent, honest, and clearly not afraid to talk about issues that most cowards in DC don't want to be associated with.

A young politician, a family man who is clearly more concerned with fixing problems than he is with being popular? That's what I call "change I can believe in"

So is Romney's at the national level. Pick your Kool-Aid

Obama had 4 years to show as all, he failed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But you want gutsy leadership? How can you claim Paul Ryan isn't the epitome of gutsy leadership.
You may not agree with Ryan's plan. But if you have a shred of intellectual honesty, how do you not give him credit for bold, decisive LEADERSHIP.

Gutsy leadership? Then why didn't he come out and say "I was also against Simpson-Bowles; Obama reduced 700 billion from medicare, but I also voted for the same cuts because it will reduce the burden medicare will put on future generations; Under my plan we would balance the budget, but to do it, exemptions would have to go away and the tax rate on people who make less than X amount would pay 10%. Since exemptions are gone, it would actually end up raising their taxes by about $2000. For people who make more, the rate will be 25%. It will result in a substantial tax inrease for those in the bracket who get most of their income from salary, but it necessary to balance the budget. I would get rid of taxes on dividends and interest, because I believe that the result will be a boom in the economy and everyone will benefit from the incredible investment that results from the wealthiest Americans investing in business."

How about that kind of leadership? Then people could vote for the plan they prefer.

Like Obama or not, he said what his policies would be: healthcare payed in part by tax increases on the wealthy; more regulation on wall street; stimulus bills that focus on teachers, firefighters, and job training, etc. He was wrong about the results and the speed of the recovery, but he didn't misrepresent what his policies would be.

Gutsy leadership? Then why didn't he come out and say "I was also against Simpson-Bowles; Obama reduced 700 billion from medicare, but I also voted for the same cuts because it will reduce the burden medicare will put on future generations; Under my plan we would balance the budget, but to do it, exemptions would have to go away and the tax rate on people who make less than X amount would pay 10%. Since exemptions are gone, it would actually end up raising their taxes by about $2000. For people who make more, the rate will be 25%. It will result in a substantial tax inrease for those in the bracket who get most of their income from salary, but it necessary to balance the budget. I would get rid of taxes on dividends and interest, because I believe that the result will be a boom in the economy and everyone will benefit from the incredible investment that results from the wealthiest Americans investing in business."

How about that kind of leadership? Then people could vote for the plan they prefer.

Like Obama or not, he said what his policies would be: healthcare payed in part by tax increases on the wealthy; more regulation on wall street; stimulus bills that focus on teachers, firefighters, and job training, etc. He was wrong about the results and the speed of the recovery, but he didn't misrepresent what his policies would be.

"Like Obama or not, he said what his policies would be..."

Like cutting the deficit in half, closing Gitmo, not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250k, transparency, and my favorite, that he would "change" DC and be the one to bring us together...

Did Ryan lie about his stance on Simpson-Bowles?

"everyone will benefit from the incredible investment that results from the wealthiest Americans investing in business."

Nice liberal bumber-sticker mentality, which unfortunately doesn't match the truth...anyone can invest in the stock market who wishes to. And today, many non-wealthy folks have some stocks and bonds, it's not just for the Rockefellers anymore. And if those tax rates on dividends are such an offense, pray tell why Obama didn't do somehting about it when the liberals controlled the executive and legislative branch?

When the liberals responsed to Ryan's medicare plan with that commercial, what liberals are saying is "we know we cannot have an honest debate on this topic with this man. So we have to demonize him."

Obama's plan takes $700 billion out of Medicare, which hurts current seniors. Ryan's plan has absoultely no impact on anyone under 55. Thatgives people more time to sock away more money that they will need. Ryan has never said that his plan doesn't mean people will have to pay more. But unlike Obama's plan, Ryan isn't asking current Medicare patients to pay more. The post baby-boom generations will have to pay a lot more out-of-pocket for our Medicare coverage. I don't like that, as it effects me. But I am honest enough to admit that it's necessary. Ryan says it's necessary. Democrats don't say it's necessary, in fact they attack those who do say it's necessary, just as you have done here.

"
Like cutting the deficit in half, (...as a result of his policies. As I stated, he was wrong about the results)

closing Gitmo, (he changed his mind? That is different than putting out a plan, as Ryan did, then distort what the plan actually does. Keeping it open is also another thing that the Republicans agree with :smash: . Maybe it was a concession to them??? )

not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250k (details???. Are you talking about tanning beds, cigarettes? ) , transparency (ok, got me there), and my favorite, that he would "change" DC and be the one to bring us together (yeah, go back to the McConnell statement and ask how you bring us together when that is what he has to work with)...

Did Ryan lie about his stance on Simpson-Bowles? (no, but he chastises Obama as if he thinks Obama was wrong, even though he agrees with Obama's stance. That is crazy. )

"everyone will benefit from the incredible investment that results from the wealthiest Americans investing in business."

Nice liberal bumber-sticker mentality, which unfortunately doesn't match the truth...anyone can invest in the stock market who wishes to. And today, many non-wealthy folks have some stocks and bonds, it's not just for the Rockefellers anymore. (~23% of tax filers have dividend income. The average of those is a few hundred dollars. They would save tens of dollars under the plan. Those $10's of dollars would be eaten up by the increase they pay in taxes to balance the budget. On the other hand, someone like Romney would pay less than 1% tax rate on his almost $80 million in investment income. THAT is the truth. If enough Americans like the plan, fine; Romney would win. Why aren't they honest about it?)

And if those tax rates on dividends are such an offense, pray tell why Obama didn't do somehting about it when the liberals controlled the executive and legislative branch? (Can't answer why it wasn't a priority during those four months when they had the filibuster proof majority; a time when they could have changed it. My guess is that he didn't want to raise those taxes in the very beginning of the recovery, since he said he wouldn't raise taxes on dividends? :scratch:. In any case, 15% current rate is a bit more than 0% under Ryan.)


fdsff

Then why didn't he come out and say . . .Under my plan we would balance the budget, but to do it, exemptions would have to go away and the tax rate on people who make less than X amount would pay 10%. Since exemptions are gone, it would actually end up raising their taxes by about $2000.



You keep saying this, but the article you linked did not state that this is actually what would happen. It projected that one possible way to make the plan revenue neutral was to do away with all exemptions including those on the middle class who would be in the plan's 10% bracket. And the author says that "admittedly" that would be an "extreme scenario"--the implication being that the middle class exemptions would not be eliminated. Actually, Ryan said his proposed elimination of tax exemptions would be those that are typically used by those in the wealthier higher income brackets. Even Ryan knows that the "extreme scenario" of eliminating all middle class exemptions would not be politically feasible. Nor would his co-author of the plan, the very liberal Wyden, go for such an "extreme scenario."

The author of your article then projects a more realistic "scenario"--reducing federal spending. But he does not talk about the Ryan/Wyden plan's overall mechanics of reducing debt and costs and ulitimately making medicare solvent in the long run.

You keep saying this, but the article you linked did not state that this is actually what would happen.

sounds like what he keeps accusing Ryan of :uhuh:

Originally Posted by zimmy
(...as a result of his policies. As I stated, he was wrong about the results)


how do you admit this but the continue to argue that his policies going forward will absolutely produce the results promised?

You keep saying this, but the article you linked did not state that this is actually what would happen.


I have seen it reported several places. The "admittedly extreme" scenario was the authors opinion, but according to the congressional analysis, it is actually what was proposed.

The following is directly from the Joint Economic Committee (10 rep., 10 dems) report


"After eliminating the deductions for state and local taxes, mortgage interest and charitable contributions, removing the employer‐provided health insurance exclusion, and taxing 401(k) contributions, the typical household making more than $1 million and filing a joint return will still experience a net reduction in taxes of $286,543 under Ryan’s budget. The typical household earning between $500,000 and $1 million will see their tax burden decline by $37,887.


For households making less than $200,000, removing the tax deductions, making 401(k) contributions subject to taxes, and eliminating the exclusion for employer‐provided health insurance outweighs the benefit of the lower tax rates in the Ryan plan. The net effect is that a typical household earning between $50,000 and $100,000 and filing jointly will face a tax increase under the Ryan plan of $1,358, assuming the additional income is taxed at a 10 percent rate. If those households end up in the 25 percent tax bracket, their additional tax burden would more than double to $2,938. For households with incomes between
$100,000 and $200,000, the tax increase is $2,681."

http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=bc6c837c-cfbd-4212-a85f-9b88695dcb85

I have seen it reported several places. The "admittedly extreme" scenario was the authors opinion, but according to the congressional analysis, it is actually what was proposed.

The following is directly from the Joint Economic Committee (10 rep., 10 dems) report




actually, according to the cover page of the report and as noted on the bottom of every page after that, it was prepared by Sen. Bob Casey's staff...who are the 10 republicans and 9 other democrats that signed on to this?

The 30-second spot cites two liberal sources for the claims: the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and a report prepared by the staff of a Democratic U.S. senator active on budget issues.

Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said Baldwin’s mixing of the two studies is a problem.

"They are not even apples and oranges," Williams said. "It’s more like apples and toast."

Both Williams and McBride expressed some concerns with the Democratic study because it assumes Ryan would eliminate major tax deductions that greatly benefit the middle class and below.

"We had no basis to decide what Ryan would pick" to eliminate, Williams said. He also criticized the Democratic study as using questionable estimates.

PolitiFact Wisconsin | Baldwin says Thompson wants to give millionaires a tax cut while raising taxes on the middle class (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/aug/27/tammy-baldwin/baldwin-says-thompson-wants-give-millionaires-tax-/)

I don't think there's any way you can't look at the Ryan plan and not see that it will disproportionately benefit the wealthy while taking away from the middle class and poor. Even if middle class tax deductions are spared, there would still have to be significant spending cuts for programs the upper-middle class and wealthy don't depend on...and to sustain high defense spending which is part of the Ryan plan.

-spence

I don't think there's any way you can't look at the Ryan plan and not see
-spence

that's a mouthful :uhuh:

and to sustain high defense spending -spence

huh?

huh?

As % of federal budget??? You are joking right?

Even better...

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/misleading-images-on-defense-spending/

-spence

As % of federal budget??? You are joking right?

Even better...

Misleading Images on Defense Spending | Cato @ Liberty (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/misleading-images-on-defense-spending/)

-spence

oh, that's right, we don't have a budget....but I did include both % of total budget and % of GDP...not so sure that the Cato opinion makes a lot of sense, I don't think there was any suggestion that defense spending should increase proportionately with entitlement spending, they were juxtaposed to show the acceleration...infact, that'd be awfully difficult...but in terms of record spending and future growth, defense spending will not likely surge...but entitlements certainly will...it's no contest

I have seen it reported several places. The "admittedly extreme" scenario was the authors opinion, but according to the congressional analysis, it is actually what was proposed.



The fact is, the Ryan/Wyden budget proposal does not specify which tax exemptions would be eliminated nor on whom. The projections you cite are guesses and assumptions that probably won't happen. The tax questions will be fleshed out by the Ways and Means Committee, and political suicide is not normal procedure.

What your report, and other negative projections don't take into account, as well as making worst case assumptions, is the impact of competitive bidding for medicare insurance coverage. Bringing the cost down on the Federal Gvts. most expensive toy, as well as cutting other spending, would have a positive impact on the economy, and on the middle class.

What is more probable than eliminating all the "middle class" deductions, is the degradation of this plan, or any other long-term plan, by future administrations and congresses.

Nor am I, personally, all that ga-ga about the Ryan plan. It is still Big Government. But at least it attempts to reduce the National Debt and "save" medicare. Much of the medicare reform is similar to the Health Care Bill. But the difference, for me, is the trajectory, vector, direction. The HCB goes in the direction of nationalizing a private sector function, the Ryan/Wyden plan goes in the direction of privatizing a national plan. It is a step toward devolution of Federal power.

if I hadnt moved to texas I would have gotten zimmy, debtuch, spence, scott and Jim in CT together for a panel discussion, recorded it and then posted to you tube.

if I hadnt moved to texas I would have gotten zimmy, debtuch, spence, scott and Jim in CT together for a panel discussion, recorded it and then posted to you tube.

:rotflmao: Oh my gosh, that would be the greatest ever. :hihi:

if I hadnt moved to texas I would have gotten zimmy, debtuch, spence, scott and Jim in CT together for a panel discussion, recorded it and then posted to you tube.

That might have been the 1st Political show to beat Honey Boo Boo Child in the ratings

Don't you think someone at the DNC should lose their job for scheduling the second day of their convention on the night of the first NFL game featuring a NY team and the Cowboys. Talk about giving you audience a choice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What your report, and other negative projections don't take into account, as well as making worst case assumptions, is the impact of competitive bidding for medicare insurance coverage. Bringing the cost down on the Federal Gvts. most expensive toy, as well as cutting other spending, would have a positive impact on the economy, and on the middle class.
Interesting enough though, the most recent experiment along these lines (Medicare Advantage) is reported to have a higher government cost.

What is more probable than eliminating all the "middle class" deductions, is the degradation of this plan, or any other long-term plan, by future administrations and congresses.
Agree this is most likely.

-spence

I watched some of the coverage tonight and have to say the speakers are so much more on message that what I saw from the GOP. For all the liberal media hyping that the DNC couldn't get their act together they're making a bit of a mockery of Tampa.

Tried watching coverage on FOX but they never actually showed any speakers. Just a little live video box of the convention floor while their pundits ripped Obama.

Not a huge Gov. Patrick fan but he gave a good speech. The mayor of San Antonio was excellent.

Don't plan on watching Warren but I'll bet Slick Willy is going to bring the house down :hihi:

-spence

I watched some of the coverage tonight and have to say the speakers are so much more on message that what I saw from the GOP.
-spence

and you are entitled to your opinion. I watched too and disagree with you.

and you are entitled to your opinion. I watched too and disagree with you.
Like who? Hell, even the National Review thought Michelle Obama was good.

-spence

What did he say? Mayor Menino
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What did he say? Mayor Menino
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Didn't see him, must have been speaking when I was on FOX.

-spence

Interesting enough though, the most recent experiment along these lines (Medicare Advantage) is reported to have a higher government cost.

-spence

It has a higher government cost partly due to its disbursments being tied into traditional medicare's administrative payment system. Ryan's plan presumably corrects that. Medicare Advantage also is more expensive because it provides a broader range of benefits than fee for service and enrollees receive higher quality care than those in traditional Medicare. In fact, the majority of Medical Advantage plan bids to provide standard Medicare benefits come in at or below government's benchmark.

The Ryan plan for competition through bidding sets the benchmark at the second lowest bid or current medicare cost, whichever is lower. If the beneficiary chooses a higher cost (higher bid) plan, he pays the difference. If he chooses the lowest cost plan, he would get a rebate for the difference. And those who choose the benchmark plan would get a voucher for the full cost. Also, vouchers would be risk-adjusted--upward for for higher risk beneficiaries, and lower for the lower risk ones. The various competing plans would have to accept anyone who applies. So companies with excess low risk enrollees would pay a fee to make up for the more profitable booking, those with excess high riskers would get a rebate.

There is a lengthy, complicated mechanism for keeping costs down and making competition work. But various critical articles don't get into the details. Various premium support plans, as is the Ryan plan, have been proposed in the past, even bipartisan ones. But they have been a tough sell, especially to seniors who have been mediscared by opponents into fearing losing medicare "as we know it." The Ryan plan solves that scare by not affecting anyone presently over 55, or those who are younger and choose to remain on traditional Medicare.

Other competing plans exist now, such as The Heritage Foundation premium support plan. When you read the actual plans, or, especially, the commentary on the plans by those who write them, or those who support them, you obviously get a far more optimistic view than that given by the critics.

Everybody seems to agree that some reform has to be made or the whole thing goes kapooie. Kinda depends on which "vector" you prefer.

Like who? Hell, even the National Review thought Michelle Obama was good.

-spence

the only review that I saw in NRO of Michelle's speech was by Jonah Goldberg....this is what he said...

"There were many points where I thought what she said was simply untrue or ludicrous, but rarely dishonest. Political wives are almost always immune to the charge of dishonesty because you have to assume their love for their husband is sincere." didn't really get this, I guess if your love for your husband is (assumed)sincere you can go ahead and tell all of the whoppers that you want and not have your honesty challenged?

"Barack Obama is always courageous and does the hard things because they’re right? What movie has she been watching over the last four years?"

" I thought as a political speech it was excellent and did nearly everything she needed it to do."

"Will it convince anyone already leaning against Obama to change their mind, I sincerely doubt it. Will it win back a few waverers? Quite possibly. Will it fire up the Democratic base? Absolutely."



so I guess if your definition of "good" is firing up a room full of bussed-in zombies

chanting... "Forward"..."Backward"....."Forward"....."Backward"

with a well delivered but at many points "ludicrous" or "untrue" presentation... sure it was "good" and maybe excellent...but I imagine most Americans are a little wary of "good" speeches at this point:uhuh::)

just for the record, I don't think much of the conventions and/or speeches on either side...

some interesting points about the "points" from someone else who admits she was "good"

"you missed quite a performance. She has become a pro at public speaking. She reads the teleprompter as smoothly as her husband, with emotion added in all the right places. It went over just fine in the hall, with Democrats mooning over her"
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/michelle_obama_pants_on_fire.html

Don't you think someone at the DNC should lose their job for scheduling the second day of their convention on the night of the first NFL game featuring a NY team and the Cowboys. Talk about giving you audience a choice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey, at least Dallas pulled out the win!

if I hadnt moved to texas I would have gotten zimmy, debtuch, spence, scott and Jim in CT together for a panel discussion, recorded it and then posted to you tube.

Shame you couldn't do a "web-inar" with all parties involved!

What did he say? Mayor Menino
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We'll have to ask Tom to explain exactly who Martha Luther King is?

In fact, the majority of Medical Advantage plan bids to provide standard Medicare benefits come in at or below government's benchmark.
That's got to be easy for the insurance companies to say when they know that's not the rate they're going to get paid.

From what I see the Ryan plan has a real potential to divide the system into dramatically different levels of care based on means.

-spence